Resolutions as Resistance

(anti-USA Patriot Act resolutions)

by Jessica Azelay

Z magazine, March 2003

Despite sizable dissent, President Bush
has resolved to declare war on both constitutional rights and
the country of Iraq. The United States Congress has been largely
complicit, declaring its support of his policies. In passing both
the USA PATRIOT Act and the more recent Iraq War Resolution, congressional
representatives ignored a huge outpouring of letters and phone
calls by constituents demanding the opposite. In response to the
obvious flouting of democracy and the bill of rights, several
city councils across the U.S. have made some important resolutions
of their own.

These resolutions differ in content and
strength. Some assert opposition to unilateral U.S./UK military
action against Iraq and demand cooperation with the United Nations
while many condemn a war on Iraq altogether. The Santa Cruz resolution
not only opposes war, but also argues against continuing the non-military
economic sanctions that have been strangling Iraq since 1990.
The resolution passed in Syracuse, New York "urges the people
of Syracuse to exert efforts to convince the President not to
unilaterally initiate any war."

The reasons that councilors give for their
resolutions are many and they reflect the depth and diversity
of objections that people have to the possible war on Iraq. In
New Haven, for instance, councilors raise concerns that "committing
American troops to Iraq will put in harm's way citizens of New
Haven, a disproportionate number of them racial and ethnic minorities
from our city's most economically deprived neighborhoods."
The Aaronsburg, Pennsylvania resolution states that killing "innocent
Middle Eastern people, including Muslims, will widen the gorge
between people of different races and religions rather than nurturing
a union of humanity here and abroad." Many resolutions cite
potential destabilization in the Middle East and the failure of
President Bush to present convincing evidence of Iraq's threat
to the United States as reasons to oppose the national war drive.
Some call attention to the connections between war and domestic
policy, pointing out that the budgetary casualties of war will
be much-needed social programs and calling out the president and
Congress for ignoring problems at home or attempting to cover
them up with a war.

Though copies of the resolutions have
been sent to President Bush, State Representatives, and the United
Nations, city councils do not have real authority in the international
arena. Their decisions cannot directly interrupt the government's
plans for war. Instead, antiwar resolutions can serve as a vehicle
for public education, media outreach, and building relationships
between community groups. Activists in cities all over the United
States are working to make themselves visible, widen the debate,
and reach a broad range of people. When activists put together
an antiwar resolution and submit it to a city council, they move
the discussion to their conversational turf. It enables them to
promote ideas on their terms, putting the opposition on the defensive.

In many cities, the process has helped
antiwar activists achieve greater visibility and backing from
diverse groups in their communities. In Syracuse, for example,
activists gave copies of the resolution to community leaders for
their consideration. The result was important dialogue and debate
not only in the city council, but in other organizations and institutions
as well.

In addition to the Syracuse Common Council
members who signed, the resolution received endorsement from several
churches, the Syracuse Area Middle East Dialogue Group, unions,
colleges, the Syracuse Jail Ministry, and the Syracuse Republican
Community. Thus, the campaign opened up new venues for the antiwar
discussion, and it provided the opportunity for many groups to
come out officially and openly against war.

Since its passage in October 2001, numerous
cities have passed resolutions condemning the USA PATRIOT Act
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act). The resolutions
have many different names such as Resolution to Defend the Bill
of Rights and Civil Liberties, Human Rights Resolution, Resolution
Regarding the USA PATRIOT Act and the Protection of Civil Rights,
or Civil Liberties Resolution, to name a few. What the resolutions
have in common is that they assert community criticism of the
USA PATRIOT Act and other Executive Orders that violate the constitution.

The resolution passed in Madison, Wisconsin,
for instance, declares that "the provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Act expand the authority of the federal government to detain and
investigate citizens and non-citizens and engage in electronic
surveillance of citizens and non-citizens and threatens civil
rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution."
It goes on to say, "the City of Madison recognizes that such
infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of any
person, under the color of law, is an abuse of power, a breach
of the public trust, a misappropriation of public resources, a
violation of civil rights, and is beyond the scope of governmental
authority."

* Lowers the burden of proof required
to conduct secret searches and telephone and Internet surveillance

Gives the Attorney General and the Secretary
of State the power to designate domestic groups, including religious
and political organizations, as "terrorist organizations"

* Grants power to the Attorney General
to subject citizens of other nations to indefinite detention or
deportation even if they have not committed a crime

* Authorizes eavesdropping on confidential
communications between lawyers and their clients in federal custody

* Limits disclosure of public documents
and records under the Freedom of Information Act, etc.

Some city councils expressed concern that
the Patriot Act increases the vulnerability of minority and immigrant
populations. For example, the Oakland, California resolution declares,
"The Department of Justice interpretations of this Act and
these Executive Orders particularly targets Muslims, people of
Middle Eastern and South Asian descent and citizens of other nations,
and thereby encourages racial profiling by law enforcement and
hate crimes by individuals in our community." Meanwhile other
resolutions, such as the one passed in Santa Cruz, California
articulate

the potential danger to activist groups.
"The Patriot Act define 'domestic terrorism' so broadly a
to apply to certain acts of civil disobedience that may include
lawful advocacy groups such as Operation Rescue or Greenpeace
as terrorist organizations and may subject then to invasive surveillance,
wire tap ping, harassment, and may criminally penalize them for
protected political advocacy; also the Patriot Act grants unchecked
power to the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as
'terrorist organizations."'

While the antiwar resolution are largely
symbolic, resolution denouncing the PATRIOT Act have real potential
to change law enforcement activities. These resolutions go beyond
words that affirm civil liberties and actually call o~ local law
enforcement agencies t' protect the rights of their citizens The
majority of city council resolutions concerning the implementation
of the PATRIOT Act in their communities request that local law
enforcement preserve the civil rights of their residents even
when ordered or allowed to infringe upon those rights by the USA
PATRIOT Act or Orders of the Executive Branch. Many extend their
request to any state or federal law enforcement agencies acting
within their community. These resolutions also strongly forbid
racial profiling in areas under their jurisdiction, and most of
them demand that congressional representatives work to repeal
aspects of the Act that violate constitutional rights. The resolution
passed by the town of Carrboro, NC provides a good example: "The
town of Carrboro, NC acting in the spirit and history of our community,
hereby requests that:

Local law enforcement continue to preserve
residents' freedom of speech, religion, assembly and privacy;
the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings;
and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if
requested or authorized to infringe upon these rights by federal
law enforcement acting under new powers granted by the USA PATRIOT
Act or Orders of the Executive Branch.

Any federal or state law enforcement
officials acting within the Town of Carrboro work in accordance
with the policies and procedures of the Carrboro Police Department,
and in cooperation with the Department, and not engage in or permit
detentions without charges or racial profiling, and to regularly
and publicly report to the Town the extent and manner in which
they have acted under the Act or the new Executive Orders, including
the names of any detainees held in the region or any Carrboro
residents detained elsewhere.

Our congressional delegation monitor
the implementation of the Act and Orders cited herein and actively
work for the repeal of those portions of the Act and those Orders
that violate fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by the
United States and North Carolina Constitutions."

The resolution approved by the city council
of Leverett, Massachusetts, like many resolutions, calls on local
and federal law enforcement to "report to citizens regularly
and publicly the extent to and manner in which they have acted
under the USA PATRIOT Act, new Executive Orders, or COINTELPRO-type
regulations, including disclosing the names of any detainees."

In an acknowledgment that gathering information
under the PATRIOT Act often requires the cooperation of private
citizens, the resolution passed in New Haven, Connecticut asks
"private citizens-including residents, employers, educators,
and business owners-to demonstrate similar respect for civil rights
and civil liberties, especially but not limited to conditions
of employment and cooperation with investigations. "

The over two-dozen city councils that
have passed these defiant resolutions are just the tip of the
iceberg. Civil rights activists are campaigning for similar resolutions
in over 60 additional cities. They are holding town meetings,
circulating petitions, and securing help and endorsements from
various community groups, unions, churches, and universities.

In Oakland, California, for instance,
the effort to pass a resolution opposing the PATRIOT Act was led
by the Oakland Civil Rights Defense Committee. In addition, it
was endorsed by the following local organizations:

* Labor Immigrant Organizing Network (LION)

* Paul Robeson Chapter of the ACLU, ACLU-NC

* National Lawyers Guild (NLG)

* Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights

* Centro Legal De La Raza

* American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,
San Francisco

* Bay Area Chapter (ADCSF)

* Oakland Public Library Advisory Commission

* Critical Resistance

* UAW Local 3030

* Green Party of Alameda County

* Lake Merritt Neighbors Organized for
Peace (LMNOP)

* Peoples NonViolent Response Coalition
(PNVRC)

* California Women's Agenda (CAWA)

* Filipinos for Affirmative Action

* Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach

* Berkeley Women In Black

* Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party

* African Peoples Solidarity Committee

The strong wording of many of the anti-PATRIOT
Act declarations challenges the authority of the federal government.
Brave cities are drawing protective circles around themselves,
boldly telling would-be wiretappers, racial profilers, and rights
violators that they are unwelcome. Some say that these lines are
only symbolic, that it is impossible for city councils to hold
back the national government. But according to Nancy Talanian,
of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, cities and towns have
the right and responsibility to uphold their state and U.S. constitutions.
The wording of most of the resolutions reflects that sentiment.
Many resolutions contain quotes and references to the Bill of
Rights and outline how the resolution is meant to reinforce those
rights. So far, no resolution has been challenged in court.

The fight to stop war on Iraq and the
struggle to resist the encroachment on people's rights is going
to be long and difficult. It is important to find practical, shorter
term goals along the way, and in many places city resolutions
represent a good option. The networking and mobilizing employed
to pass these resolutions contributes to the broader goals of
our movements. Working to see these resolutions adopted on the
town or city level helps activists enhance their influence within
their own communities.

City councils are not the only organizations
passing antiwar or anti-PATRIOT Act resolutions. They are just
one part of a growing trend. Unions, colleges and universities,
religious organizations, and community groups have been busy passing
their own resolutions. When used strategically, they constitute
a telling achievement. At a time when politicians are shirking
their responsibility to represent the sentiments of their constituents,
these resolutions provide a powerful tool for communities to speak
from the bottom up.